Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Is his Schiavo stance hurting Bush politically?

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 26, 2005 12:38 AM PST
Polls Show Drop for Bush's Job Approval.
There have been two major stories in the two weeks over which Bush has lost 6-7 points in the two polls -- his midnight grandstanding to interfere in the Schaiavo case (contrary to the desires of ca. 70% of Americans, according to another poll already discussed here) and the skyrocketing gas prices -- how could he be blamed for THAT? Oh, yeah -- he killed the higher fuel standards and drastically cut funding for alternative energy sources (while publicly calling for increased research into same -- but he never lies!) Too bad the chickens are coming home to roost about six months too late Sad

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Is his Schiavo stance hurting Bush politically?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Is his Schiavo stance hurting Bush politically?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
i beleave it hurt both parties
by Mark5019 / March 26, 2005 1:26 AM PST

the politicains should stayed out of it

Collapse -
Certainly not with the lunatic fringe but
by badabing / March 26, 2005 2:01 AM PST

I don't think that true conservatives are happy about this blatant attempt to trample on state's rights.

Collapse -
The lunatic fringe being those...
by Edward ODaniel / March 26, 2005 2:51 AM PST

on the left who would dislike him no matter what and invent specious reasons (as Dave did in his post) for blaming him for everything that comes down the pike. If they stub their toe it is his fault and if Churchill is dismissed from Colorado for his fabricated ethnicity and background or copied art or lying on his resume or being unqualified for the position that too will be blamed on Bush.

Most Conservatives are aware that he is a religious person who has never attempted to hide the fact and are aware that like everyone else in the world his personal beliefs color his decisions just as Clinton's or Kerry's colored theirs.

Collapse -
If he's so religious and so dedicated to the Right to Life
by Ziks511 / March 27, 2005 3:24 PM PST

why did he sign into law the Futile Treatment(a judgement call) Act in Texas that pulled life support on the 6 month old baby who's parents opposed discontinuation of life support, but who were too poor to pay for its maintenance.

He's opposed to the right to life for poor people and for people who can't help him politically. And apparently for the elderly too to judge by his stand on Social Security. Can you spell hypocrite?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Get your facts straight ... different situation
by Evie / March 28, 2005 3:48 AM PST
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You're joking !!! What's so different??
by Ziks511 / March 28, 2005 6:03 AM PST
Collapse -
'Whiner/cry-baby' subthread deleted (NT)
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 28, 2005 4:12 AM PST
Collapse -
Hardly specious or my invention -- it's a common conclusion
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 28, 2005 4:18 AM PST

of most political pundits, given the limited news topics and dramatic shift in the polls, to Bush's lowest post-9/11. It was the conclusion of the lead story of the McLaughlin Group, frinstance -- and that's hardly "leftist!"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Yes, SPECIOUS Dave...

and I referred to your entire personal comments.

Yes, the McLaughlin Group is conservative IF you consider Eleanor Clift, and James Warren (both of whom make James Carville look objective) conservative.

You attempt to make it appear that it is Schiavo that has caused a drop in polls although you did mention gas prices peripherally although the polls themselves attribute the drop to 1 economy worries, 2. gas prices, 3. Social Security, and 4. Schiavo (with Schiavo being peripheral to the other two). Gas prices had much more to do with the approval drop (concern was BELOW 5% in the previous polls) but (AND THIS IS A BIG BUT) his approval ratings are still well above the low marks scored by most recent presidents, and it is within range of Bush's relatively steady poll numbers over the past year.

It is your attempts to SPIN that are specious Dave. Humorous but specious.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=15373

The Rasmussen Reports tend to be more interesting as the questioning remains the same and injected bias doesn'y cloud the issue as much:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

And when you look at the questions asked even an academic such as Ward Churchill should be able to see how bias was not kept out of the equation and exactly how the inherent bias affected the answers and results.
http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) McLaughlin opines it's lost them the libertarian vote.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / March 26, 2005 4:24 AM PST
Collapse -
She's dying but still, everything is politics, isn't it?
by David Evans / March 26, 2005 2:57 AM PST

<eyescan>
<JumpingUpAndDownWithArmsFlailingAbout>
<hyperventilation>
<repetitiverepititiousrepititionrepeated>
<antiAmerican>
<antiChristian>
<SameOlSameOl>
<Quagmire!>
<Vietnam!>
<Nixon!>
<McCarthyism!>
<NewtsManual!>
<HeSaidBringItOn!>
<HeyHeyHoHo!>
<Boooooooooooooring>


I suppose the anti-American leftists will rejoice if they perceive that they can gain political advantage from the death of the helpless.

EVERYTHING IN LIFE, and death, is politics to the loser leftists, isn't it? Exploit it all for politics and drone on and on and endlessly on. Life, death, weather, traffic, gas prices... Every steenkin' thing is politics.

That's sad DK. Dreadfully pitiful and sad.

How low can you get man?

DE


</Boooooooooooooring>
</HeyHeyHoHo!>
</HeSaidBringItOn!>
</NewtsManual!>
</McCarthyism!>
</Nixon!>
</Vietnam!>
</Quagmire!>
</SameOlSameOl>
</antiChristian>
</antiAmerican>
</repetitiverepititiousrepititionrepeated>
</hyperventilation>
</JumpingUpAndDownWithArmsFlailingAbout>
</eyescan>

Collapse -
***, Dave was just stating the obvious
by trytohelp / March 26, 2005 3:36 AM PST

Last week the president's ratings were 52% this week they are 46%, what has happened between last week and this week that would cause this. It's very apparent that part of the american public doesn't like congress and the president taking power away from the states. They(republicans in government) want to give the responsibility to the states and the cost to the states until the states don't go the way they(the congress) want. Then they want to take it away. They want it both ways but don't want to pay for it. People aren't anti-american because they don't see things your way. Different views and debates is what makes America the great country it is.
quote:
EVERYTHING IN LIFE, and death, is politics to the loser leftists, isn't it? :unquote

Leftists aren't the ones that brought this into the congress and the president to make a new law and make this into politics. They are the ones that didn't want this to happen. And apparently, the american public agrees with them.
Your post is very confusing, I surprised they let you be a moderator.

Collapse -
Your confusion is understandable when it becomes...
by Edward ODaniel / March 26, 2005 4:43 AM PST

apparent that you are simply not cognizant of the facts. 47 Democrat Representatives voted in favor and 53 against which is darned close to half for and half against. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll090.xml

Yes, some of us are more than a bit disturbed at this encroachment on State's Rights but such is rarely done by Conservatives while a commonplace agenda of the left.

That is *** since you must ask.

Collapse -
You are right about the vote in congress and...
by trytohelp / March 26, 2005 5:28 AM PST

I'm disappointed in the Democrats as much as the republicans. But you will have to note I didn't say that the rightist people voted this in, my words were
Quote from me:
Leftists aren't the ones that brought this into the congress. :unquote
This is true the leftests are not the ones who brought this issue, half the democrats that voted sided with them but they aren't the ones that brought it.

Collapse -
I agree
by David Evans / March 26, 2005 5:40 AM PST

I too was disturbed at the intrusion into State's rights.

So far as I know, and I could be wrong because I haven't read much about the case, there's been only one meaningful hearing involving finding of fact. But it's a state matter, so that's that.

I do find it disturbing that nobody is permitted to offer her food and water though. If somebody offered her a spoonful of soup or a drink of water and she was able to eat and drink of her own volition, nobody should be able to forbid her to eat and drink. If she was one of mine, was able to and wanted to eat and drink, and anybody tried to stop her from eating and drinking, I'd get her out of there and get the hell out of Dodge. Heaven help anybody who got in the way.

There's no realistic possibility of a happy ending here, no matter what happens. If she lives, she won't have much of a life. If she dies, well, she's dead. Nothing to celebrate about in either case.

But my main point here is that she isn't even buried yet and already the blue leftists are seeking to exploit her impending death for their political gain. Is there no limit to the all-politics-all-the-time everything-is-politics obsession of these losers? How low and rancid can politics get? It stinks.

They ought to show some respect for the dead and for the dying. That's not too much to ask from anybody with honor and a conscience. Everything ain't politics.

And once again, trytohelp, that's *** for you.

DE

Collapse -
It's your side that's not showing respect..
by trytohelp / March 26, 2005 5:46 AM PST
In reply to: I agree

It's your rightist side thats making a national government issue out of it. Her face is all over the tv accross the national because your side made a national issue out of it. If you knew anything about the case you would know that giving her food or water would choke her to death.

Collapse -
No, DavE. But politics impacts people's lives, as shown

in this case. What's really sad is Delay's comment that "God sent us Terry Schiavo to show how things really are in America." My side isn't the one that tried to politicize this issue -- I'm crowing over the fact that the Republicans' effort to do so has clearly backfired with the majority of the American people.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Diddo Mark, Have more to add to Ed's
by trytohelp / March 26, 2005 3:17 AM PST

quote:
Most Conservatives are aware that he is a religious person who has never attempted to hide the fact and are aware that like everyone else in the world his personal beliefs color his decisions just as Clinton's or Kerry's colored theirs. :unquote

To me it was a sad day for the United States when a candidate for President of the United States has to stand up there in an election debate and testify that they have religious beliefs and that these beliefs influence every decision they make. Where is the separation of church and state. I don't vote for someone because they are religious, they could be an atheist for all I care. I vote for them for their policy's and the goals they want to achieve. Not because they are a born again christian or not. They both stood up there and professed that their religious beliefs would guide them in their decisions to control america. The fact that they did this just to get votes tells me how entwinded religion is in state. There is a reason for devision of Church and State.

Collapse -
In a private letter, that is where...
by Edward ODaniel / March 26, 2005 4:36 AM PST

the separation of Church and state is.

It is not in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independance nor any other official documents until AFTER an activist judiciary began legislating from the bench over 140 years AFTER the country was founded. Not strange to note either is that you will also not find any Separation of Church and State" in any of the journals of the Congressional Record.

The aforementioned papers actually show a dependance on religions beliefs as do the many writings of the founders. All that you will find in any official documentation of the Federal government (until after those activist judges). Many of those official papers will have noted upon them by the author or the signers wording to the effect of "In this Year of Our Lord". For instance this phrase is found on the Constitution itself "the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth."; this phrase on the Declaration of Independance "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,"; In Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America "so help me God"; Congressional Record House of Representatives 1st Congress, 1st Session Monday, 6 April 1789 "Resolved, That the form of the oath to be taken by the members of this House, as required by the constitution of government of the United States, be as followeth, to wit: "I, A B, a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

and the list could go on and on and one wouldn't even have to note that the position of Chaplain was created UNANIMOUSLY by vote for both the House and the Senate.

None are indicative of any "separation" of church and state but all are indicative of the meaning and intent of the establishment clause of the First Amendment which was worded after much debate as it is to prevent the newly formed government from "establishing" and state religion as England had.

I find it not only sad but DISGUSTING that you are upset by President Bush showing and voicing the SAME thing that was voiced in the Declaration of Independance by the founders who testified that they were guided by "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence".

Collapse -
You reinforce my point...
by trytohelp / March 26, 2005 5:10 AM PST

Of how ingrained religion is in our government, and when I say religion I mean christianity.
quote:
from "establishing" and state religion as England had. :unquote.
When the members of the house open or close with a prayer what kind of prayer is it? Moslem, Buddist, jewish, no it's from a christian man or woman. Christians believe they should spread their beliefs on everyone, they even think like you do, that they are entitled to have it be part of our government. That is not what the United States is suppose to be, it's suppose to be a melting pot for all religions and races not just something where you christians can thrust your values on everyone because they are high in number and have a lot of people to back them up, to say what is right and wrong from in the Bible. The worst part is that people like you teach your kids the same thing so that prejudism grows and grows and grows over the years against people who are not of your same beliefs. So you can be disgusted with me all you want. The only reason you are is because I'm not brainwashed by the same beliefs as you. I don't live by the same book as you. I don't take this personally because I know that you are disgusted by anyone who has a differnt belief.

Collapse -
You have some serious misperceptions...
by Edward ODaniel / March 27, 2005 2:52 AM PST

as it is widely and generally well known that this country was founded, established, and thrived on principles and values of Judeo/Christian religion. This is indeed deeply ingrained into the very structure of the country and government. (You got that much right at least.)

NOWHERE in the founding documents nor in the Congressional Record will you find that there was any attempt to force acceptance of atheism or even agnosticism upon the citizenry until much later after activist judges decided to ignore the second portion of the First Amendment with regard to religion--that portion which specifically mentions the free practice of religion (and the religion mentioned was Judeo/Christian, not Islam, Buddhism, nor Satanism or that practiced by Wiccans).

Never was it even hinted that acceptance of anything other than Judeo/Christian religion was a consideration. Matter of fact, the individual Sovereign States were free to establish an official State Religion if desired and MANY DID JUST THAT! Federal and State governments policies toward and recognition of Native American religious beliefs demonstrate quite clearly that there was no freedom to practice them authorized by the founders--quite the contrary in fact.

I am not, by the way, a "christian" as you state, but a long time agnostic who is intelligent enough to not read into written words what is not there nor to misrepresent that which is indeed present in the documentation--I leave that to the liberal pseudo academics and the so called "progressives".

Prejudice is a fact of life and nature--deal with it! Show me someone (anyone) who claims to not be prejudiced and I will show you a liar. I am disgusted with you for ranting about Bush publicly acknowledging his religion and the fact that it is a strong influence on him BECAUSE that is EXACTLY the same as what our founders also professed and believed in and allowed to influence them and their decisions.

You are indeed brainwashed and it is your own words and claims that makes this so apparent. You, like many others have blindly accepted that which has been spoonfed to you without ever taking advantage of readily available documentation by the very people who founder and then ran this country. If you had you would see that the claims you "believe" cannot be substantiated by the words and discussions of the founders.

Here is a good place to start disabusing yourself of the misinformation you have been fed:
Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793

Collapse -
Keep going vent a little, the more you claim religion...
by trytohelp / March 27, 2005 6:44 AM PST

belongs in government the more you prove my point, so keep going don't stop there. That's alright if you are prejudice against me for not believing like you do because, you are right everyone is prejudice, but I'm only prejudice against one type of people and that's you and people like you who think they can push they're religious belief on everyone. Does it bother you that I would vote for someone who wasn't religious? Why it must. I vote for a president because of all the issues, I don't aggree fully with the Democrats or the Republicans. I weigh up which candidate has more of the views I want in a president and I vote for him. Religion however is not one of those issues.
I know lots of people who vote for a president for 1 reason, 1 policy, 1 stance he takes while he is in office. Those people are voting for him because their church tells them to because he is pro-life. They care nothing about the other issues. So you can say I don't know nothin but what's spoonfed to me but I have to tell it like I see it. What I see in the people around me.
Quote:
I am disgusted with you for ranting about Bush publicly acknowledging his religion and the fact that it is a strong influence on him BECAUSE that is EXACTLY the same as what our founders also professed :unquote.

So is it all right that President Bush burns people at the stake or drowns them because he thinks they're a witch. Because people in the early stages of this country did it.
Or is it ok that President Bush has slaves, because our founding fathers had them or let other people have them for years and years.
So enlighten me some more, tell me how wrong I am, guide me through the dark and into the light where I have knowledge and faith so I can think its good for the Government to jump into my religion, as they should be a part of it. I am just a black sheep that thinks that my religious beliefs are private and personal matters. Show me the light, don't stop now.

Collapse -
Take a pill
by Cindi Haynes / March 27, 2005 7:04 AM PST

If you'd read Ed's post carefully, you'd see where he stated he's NOT a Christian. Therefore, your statement

I'm only prejudice against one type of people and that's you and people like you who think they can push they're religious belief on everyone

sounds sort of silly in light of that, don'tcha think?

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

Collapse -
Do you really believe that?
by trytohelp / March 27, 2005 9:21 AM PST
In reply to: Take a pill

agnostic:
someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists:

Do you really think that is consistent with his argument?
Not that I care what he is, but he's sure arguing a case against his own definition of himself. And no one should settle for prejudice, or in his words "deal with it", when talking about prejudice. But hey what do I care, that is what this message board is all about.

Collapse -
Do you really believe that? Sure I do
by Cindi Haynes / March 28, 2005 12:59 AM PST

I don't have to be a Muslim to know and/or argue the fact that many governments in the Middle East are formed on the basis of Islam, do I?

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

Collapse -
My arguments have been consistent throughout...
by Edward ODaniel / March 28, 2005 6:29 AM PST

it is your apparent inability to reason and face simple facts that appears to have you confused and confounded.

Agnostic by the by is not limited to "someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists:" (judging by the colon you copied that from somewhere). It also means anyone who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not deny the possibility as opposed to either a religious person who firmly believes or an atheist who firmly disbelieves. In other words uncommitted.

Just because I am not a Christian however does not mean that, like you, I am unable to see the import of religion to those who do believe and our founders were indeed religious men. Quite the contrary as I, and anyone else who has actually read their speeches and writings, plainly see that they CONSTANTLY refer to their religious precepts.

Regarding prejudice, as I said, you must learn to deal with it because it is a fact of nature and isn't going away. Prejudice isn't even necessarily bad, you and far too many others have simply accepted negative connotations. Your own prejudices seem right and proper to you although they aren't to the majority.

You will likely, in view of your comment "And no one should settle for prejudice" attempt to dispute that you even have any but a tiny bit of use of the old gray matter to reflect a bit on your arguments will clearly indicate where your prejudices lie and what they entail. Deal with it.

There is a cure for ignorance, and it is research, study, learning, and availing oneself of the opportunity to peruse references provided. Like all other good things though, it also involves effort and willingness and a little time so it goes uncured by those unwilling.

Collapse -
I can't help but wonder...
by J. Vega / March 28, 2005 2:41 AM PST

I can't help but wonder, is your "burns people at the stake" a historical reference to the Salem Witch Trials in the U.S.?
BTW, in that case, one person was pressed to death for refusing to stand trial, and the people who were sentenced to execution were hanged. So why did you say burned at the stake, more "punch" in the image that it brings to mind?

Collapse -
You have no point...
by Edward ODaniel / March 28, 2005 6:02 AM PST

and your feeble attempts to deny the importance of religion to the founders only proves that you have avoided learning much about our founders and our nation in general.

I provided a link where you could actually read the words spoken by the country's founders but it appears that you would rather revel in self sustained ignorance. Your choice, enjoy.

As for your "Is it all right" questions I will forego answering them as it appears that you are indeed swamped in ignorance and you aren't willing to grab the rope tossed to you. Your choice, enjoy.

Collapse -
Conventicle Act of 1665
by kmarchal / March 28, 2005 6:27 AM PST
In reply to: You have no point...

Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.

The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion.

Collapse -
Exactly...
by Edward ODaniel / March 28, 2005 6:40 AM PST
Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.